They were founded ... achieved some justice ... and aren't over. So what you're saying is, That the Dems, Opposed the Reps? Are you implying, that the Dems, should have agreed with the Reps?
Capturing people in purjury traps while the FBI and partisan prosecutors violated FISA, search and seizure right, attorney-client privilege, evidence tampering, witness tampering and intimidation, spying, maintaining conflicts of interest, and proven bias of FBI investigators and FBI leadership does not mean the investigations were founded nor any justice was achieved. Further, the Steele Dossier was ultimately discredited. As far as Ukraine was concerned, international cooperation of investigations and negotiation concerning matters of extradition and the like have long been the perogative of the President. Precident had been established concerning Presidential authority, even if Trump committed a technical violation. There is still a lot of corruption in Washington. Established career politicians are not my first choice, but I am willing to work with what we would have, at least to a certain extent, should Biden be sworn in as President of the United States of America.
What's a perjury trap. You mean, they forced someone to lie? And why were all those Trump folks lying anyway. What do you think all that smoke means? Evidence? and false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)#Criminal_charges False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019)#Criminal_charges Yes. Yes there is. If you do a little research, you'll find the real swamp. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ore-criminal-indictments-under-trump-reagan-/ Obama takes jab at Trump: ‘Nobody in my administration got indicted’ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...-jab-at-trump-nobody-in-my-administration-got
I don't know what's funnier, all these Trumpers crying about their phony frauds and their Qanon conspiracies, or the fact that they would have us believe they hold such beliefs while being consistently profitable traders. If you are willing to fool yourself so easily about politics, no way you aren't a net loser in the markets.
For information purposes only. I'm not interested in convincing anyone of this. Admit that you believe it, or don't: As posted earlier by @Here4money : Ga. Sec. Of State Says Lindsey Graham Suggested He Find A Way To Toss Legal Ballots | All In | MSNBC I would think real Republicans would have a problem with this ... before the Democrats decide to respond in kind the next time they lose an election.
Other parallels: They fall in love with a particular politician, no matter how horrible they are. They probably hold losing positions, no matter the loss. They follow whatever dear leader tells them. They follow the retail crowd. They can't accept defeat. Again, they hold losing positions. They don't listen to reason. They don't follow the trend. Etc.
Basically a purjury trap is where an attorney will ask a witness the same question in different ways in an attempt different answer out of the witness. Then the attorney will show how the questions he asked were basically the same and then try to get the witness to admit he gave different answers to the same question. This technique is seen in civil cases, from what I understand, in order to impeach the credibility of a witness. The Democrats used this technique against those associated against Trump in order to charge them with purjury for political reasons. The Obama Administration was very corrupt as shown by partisan FBI leadership, the Solyndra scandal, $1.4 billion paid to a Canadian company for a website that did not work properly on day one, Rezco where Obama received what amounted to an illegal campaign donation, Obama as a probable beneficiary of influence peddling by ultimately convicted Democrat Rod Blagojevich for Obama’s Illionois Senate seat, and Obama’s thousands of pardons when he left office. Further, I’ve already posted a list of the convictions of Democrat politicians under the Obama Administration as shown by wikipedia.org. There were also numerous ethical issues and blatently partisan activities to the point of illegality concerning public funds. Below is an article on purjury traps: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap Didn’t really want to get into Obama’s history as it is a bit old, but the BS level here is getting too high.
I better support my statements than either one of you. I am able to see the weaknesses of Trump and have discussed those weakeness in posts on ET. I am able to take and use information that may go against my previous understanding. I can change my position on an issue. I am also more of an independent thinker than either of you have shown. Often, when people know deep down inside they are being outclassed in an argument or a game, they will try to change the subject, the game, or make excuses, or curse. This was a discussion about politics in a politics thread and you guys are trying to change the subject to trading. However, I’m willing to work with you. Do you both want to compare trading statements or do a trading challenge? Hmmmm?
That's not how your own link describes a perjury trap. See quote below. Please provide a cite supporting "your" definition. Isn't it true that, even using your so-called "definition," a lie is still told under oath. If you disagree, give an example from the investigations we are referring to where "your" perjury trap was employed; as you described and allege. Tripping up a witness doesn't rise to deliberate deception, or perjury. Perjury in a civil case is also a crime; it doesn't have to occur in a criminal case in order to be a crime. Tripping up a witness may discredit a witness, but doesn't lead to an "AH HA! PERJURY!!" moment, as you want readers to believe. Again, let's cut to the chase: show us all where this occurred during the investigations and trials, as you allege it did. And then support you other allegation by showing us how you know the prosecution did it for political reasons, rather than for the reasons it's normally done in court. Show us how you know the intent of the prosecution. Show us how you know what they were thinking. Link? Link? If you make allegations, provide evidence/links. If you want to repeat those allegations in another post, then also repeat those links/evidence in that post too. It goes to showing bias and hypocrisy re: the current matter: Trump. It's been too high for a long time, don't let that stop you now. I'm going to continue to show everyone just how deep the BS here right now is. From your own link, emphasis added: " A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath). Courts on state and federal levels almost never recognize such as inappropriate, as doing so would in essence, condone perjury.[1] As an example, suppose that a person committed a crime for which they were never prosecuted, but the statute of limitations on that crime has expired. A prosecutor could set a perjury trap for them by calling them as a witness before a grand jury in a case about a different crime, and ask them about the expired crime. If the witness lies about the expired crime, that would be perjury—a new crime, which could then be prosecuted.[2] Prosecution for perjury elicited in this manner violates due process of law, since the investigatory powers of the grand jury are exploited to reach beyond their legal limits.[1] It has been argued by legal scholars whether it constitutes a form of entrapment.[2] Claims of a perjury trap are common when perjury charges result from testimony before a grand jury, but are rarely proven.[3] No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.[2] The defense is extremely difficult, because the question that elicited the perjured testimony must be immaterial to the case in which it was asked, and courts construe very broadly what questions count as material to a case.[2] ..." Where does your cited definition talk about repeatedly asking the same question differently, as you asserted in your "definition" of a perjury trap.